New game stucture

[The Fugitive]

Why has this game turned into an on-line version of "RISK"? You mass up your playing pieces along a boarder and then throw them at the next land mass. Roll your dice and take your chances that you brought enough "game markers" to take the objective.

Yesterday it started out with GHI and the Bish horde sneaking bases. Then supper time came and all the "kids" had to leave and it was Earl and the Rook horde taking back the base GHI and his horde had grabbed earlier. As night potato on the Knits got there horde running and as Earl and his horde were too busy stealing land from the Bish it was left to the stragglers to try and slow down the building Knit horde. Same old, same old.

Why has the game fallen into this routine? Don't get me wrong, I found little fights here and there, spoiled a few strat runs, made a milk run myself, but I had to work at it to find these things. When the "groups" get rolling it turns into the same old thing. Is grabbing bases more important than playing the game? No I don't want to see furballs all night, I want to see fights, period. It seems that when these groups get rolling they do what ever they can to avoid fighting for anything.

Want a base? Bring 50 guys to flatten everything and drop troops. Even if it is a vehicle base!  How can there be a fight there? Now have 5 guys (2 buffs, 2 fighters, and a goon/M3) hit a V base and you might have to fight for it if someone is paying attention. If not you will take it with ease. Why must these "groups" all be on one base? is the chance of not getting the base such a horrible thought that it must be avoided at all costs? Will people actually die if the base is not captured? Will people rage quit if the "mission" ..... and I use that term VERY loosely, fails?

I wish some of these "leaders" would take it upon themselves to make mission more interesting and fun for all, and all being both sides.   

[Latrobe]

The large missions (or hordes as call them) have become the main base taking method in the MA. I don't know why though but no matter what country the horde is from it seems their main goal is to avoid conflict and take undefended bases. Many times now I've heard things along the lines of "They've got some uppers! We've blown this take, let's go somewhere else." or "There's a dar bar in that area, let's not head that way to take that base." Yet they've got nearly a 3 to 1 advantage over the defenders.

I am not a mission planner but I have thrown together 1 or 2 Jug runs (usually only 8-12 people join the mission) and I've heard these comments even in my missions. I remember in the last Jug raid I threw together I asked all ords to be dropped on the town while the light Jugs flew fighter cap. Someone then made a comment along the lines of "They have planes over the base, should we drop the FHs instead?" Naaah, drop everything on town and we'll just kill anything up or trying to up... spoiler alert, it worked and we took the base. 

I bet things would become a bit more interesting and fun if mission planners branched out and tried some new stuff rather than the tried and tested NOE lancs, shut down all hangar, and take base.

[JunkyII]

10+ planes in a group should flash a sector red even NOE.

[bozon]

The problem is that with a small team too many things can go wrong. A small number of defenders can frustrate attackers who appear to hold air superiority.

GV have a large part in that - M3 resupplying can easily sneak in (thanks to the short gv icons) and make acks and town pop up again. A tank sitting next to the map room is difficult to get rid off unless they got more bombs (require more participants). Bombing the VH is a good start but spawn from near by bases are too close and within minutes destroyed tanks/whirbs are back in an endless stream.

All this means that attackers must come with lost of ordnance to spare, meaning a large team.

GVs are here to stay so what can be done?
1. Move away the remote spawns from the town base. Really, in some cases tanks start shelling the town/ base within a minute after spawning when a plane takes nearly 10 minuted to climb and fly to the target.
2. Town resupply by GV must be done at the map room. M3 must drive all the way into town.
3. Open turret vehicles should be more susceptible to fire from above. I can't imagine anyone surviving a 20mm volley into the open turret of an ostwind.

That is all I can come up with right now.

[ridley1]

Fugitive has brought up a topic that I brought up, literally, years ago.

What is the best way to develop, or more appropriately, have the game evolve?

Base capture has been the  way to 'win' the war in the arena.  Can soemthing be introduced or developed that gives another 'path to victory'?

[XxDaSTaRxx]

Mass hording groups of buffs and fighters has always been the way of life for Aces High. If you don't flatten everything on the base then you get resistance. I asked ET37 last night why exactly he does his (very successful) missions the way he does. His reply was "that's the only way to do it." Mass buff formations with escorts are usually unstoppable. Last night during the take of 222, a pony tried to breach the buff formation and was killed by escorts immediately. Mass buff formations and fighters is and always will be the most superior way to take a base.

[earl1937]

Why has this game turned into an on-line version of "RISK"? You mass up your playing pieces along a boarder and then throw them at the next land mass. Roll your dice and take your chances that you brought enough "game markers" to take the objective.

Yesterday it started out with GHI and the Bish horde sneaking bases. Then supper time came and all the "kids" had to leave and it was Earl and the Rook horde taking back the base GHI and his horde had grabbed earlier. As night potato on the Knits got there horde running and as Earl and his horde were too busy stealing land from the Bish it was left to the stragglers to try and slow down the building Knit horde. Same old, same old.

Why has the game fallen into this routine? Don't get me wrong, I found little fights here and there, spoiled a few strat runs, made a milk run myself, but I had to work at it to find these things. When the "groups" get rolling it turns into the same old thing. Is grabbing bases more important than playing the game? No I don't want to see furballs all night, I want to see fights, period. It seems that when these groups get rolling they do what ever they can to avoid fighting for anything.

Want a base? Bring 50 guys to flatten everything and drop troops. Even if it is a vehicle base!  How can there be a fight there? Now have 5 guys (2 buffs, 2 fighters, and a goon/M3) hit a V base and you might have to fight for it if someone is paying attention. If not you will take it with ease. Why must these "groups" all be on one base? is the chance of not getting the base such a horrible thought that it must be avoided at all costs? Will people actually die if the base is not captured? Will people rage quit if the "mission" ..... and I use that term VERY loosely, fails?

I wish some of these "leaders" would take it upon themselves to make mission more interesting and fun for all, and all being both sides.   

Well, now I am going to have to give away my little secret of missions! Yes, when I post missions in the MLW arena, I usually get 6 to 8 bomber pilots, 8 to 10 fighters, both heavy and light. What I try to do is stay under 14K for two reasons, #1 bomb accuracies and #2 it promotes a running fight to and from the target. This game is all about air combat, and some GV action, but mainly air combat, and as soon as I show that big DAR bar, I know the enemy fighters are going to show up and the fight is on. That is what is "fun" about this game, getting intercepted and defending the bombers with their guns and the fighters intercepting the bad guys.
While "furballs" are fun I guess, they usually don't prove much except who can out fly and out fight each other. But big bomber missions, all together a different atmosphere of flying. Getting the bombers into a defensive "box" and dispersing the fighters into a "Dr. Pepper" formation, waiting on the bad guys to try and outsmart not only the fighters, but the gunners in the bombers. Then over the target, things begin to get really interesting as all the bombers have a slightly different heading to fly for their hangar or what have you, then they begin to disperse because of the different headings and then the fighters have a helluva time defending them because they are scattered, even though I tell them what heading to fly leaving the base to make a procedure turn and go back to town.
If I get all my bomber pilots home, then I feel as though I have done my job as mission commander, even if they only get one bomber home.
Next time you are in MLW arena around 6PM, EST, that is when I usually start running missions, join us and I think you will enjoy the ramifications of escorting a ET37 mission!

[The Fugitive]

The problem is that with a small team too many things can go wrong. A small number of defenders can frustrate attackers who appear to hold air superiority.

GV have a large part in that - M3 resupplying can easily sneak in (thanks to the short gv icons) and make acks and town pop up again. A tank sitting next to the map room is difficult to get rid off unless they got more bombs (require more participants). Bombing the VH is a good start but spawn from near by bases are too close and within minutes destroyed tanks/whirbs are back in an endless stream.

All this means that attackers must come with lost of ordnance to spare, meaning a large team.

GVs are here to stay so what can be done?
1. Move away the remote spawns from the town base. Really, in some cases tanks start shelling the town/ base within a minute after spawning when a plane takes nearly 10 minuted to climb and fly to the target.
2. Town resupply by GV must be done at the map room. M3 must drive all the way into town.
3. Open turret vehicles should be more susceptible to fire from above. I can't imagine anyone surviving a 20mm volley into the open turret of an ostwind.

That is all I can come up with right now.

....and what is wrong with that?

I know the main focus is to capture the base, but ...to me anyway... the satisfaction of wining with small numbers just makes it that much more fun. If I lose, oh well, I had fun trying any way. If the fun is in the fight, whats wrong with setting it so there IS a fight?

Well, now I am going to have to give away my little secret of missions! Yes, when I post missions in the MLW arena, I usually get 6 to 8 bomber pilots, 8 to 10 fighters, both heavy and light. What I try to do is stay under 14K for two reasons, #1 bomb accuracies and #2 it promotes a running fight to and from the target. This game is all about air combat, and some GV action, but mainly air combat, and as soon as I show that big DAR bar, I know the enemy fighters are going to show up and the fight is on. That is what is "fun" about this game, getting intercepted and defending the bombers with their guns and the fighters intercepting the bad guys.
While "furballs" are fun I guess, they usually don't prove much except who can out fly and out fight each other. But big bomber missions, all together a different atmosphere of flying. Getting the bombers into a defensive "box" and dispersing the fighters into a "Dr. Pepper" formation, waiting on the bad guys to try and outsmart not only the fighters, but the gunners in the bombers. Then over the target, things begin to get really interesting as all the bombers have a slightly different heading to fly for their hangar or what have you, then they begin to disperse because of the different headings and then the fighters have a helluva time defending them because they are scattered, even though I tell them what heading to fly leaving the base to make a procedure turn and go back to town.
If I get all my bomber pilots home, then I feel as though I have done my job as mission commander, even if they only get one bomber home.
Next time you are in MLW arena around 6PM, EST, that is when I usually start running missions, join us and I think you will enjoy the ramifications of escorting a ET37 mission!

.... maybe in the first minute of posting the mission 

More often than not your "missions" are over 30 guys easy. The same with GHI, but at least you'll go at alt and draw a fight... even if it is a hopeless fight. The point I'm trying to make is that you guys are running missions, but not promoting a fight. Your still holding that "well I need these extra guys just in case...." attitude over good game play <---- subjective term. All this does is create bigger hordes. You fly under 14k because of "bombing accuracies". I call it due to lack of skill in the playing populace.  With the "lazer guided" bomb site we have a bit of training can have anyone hit anything from any alt. Of course why would any one "practice" something in a game 

Earl, just for giggles, the next time you have 30+ guys join a mission, hit 3 bases at once with 10 guys each and see how many bases you get. 10 guys carry enough ord and troops to take a base and if you hit 3 bases along the same front your going to force the few defenders that DO up to choose which base or bases to defend. What it will do is add some challenge to the attack, and a bit of a shot for the defenders to slow or maybe even stop you at one or more of the bases making it fun for them too. Just a thought.

[Schen]

I have been apart of quite a few successful small group takes. One set of bombers. One to three heavy fighters and a goons or m3. Those missions have statistically proven to work 1/3 the time. Win or lose its fun none the less.

[Tinkles]

The problem is that with a small team too many things can go wrong. A small number of defenders can frustrate attackers who appear to hold air superiority.

GV have a large part in that - M3 resupplying can easily sneak in (thanks to the short gv icons) and make acks and town pop up again. A tank sitting next to the map room is difficult to get rid off unless they got more bombs (require more participants). Bombing the VH is a good start but spawn from near by bases are too close and within minutes destroyed tanks/whirbs are back in an endless stream.

All this means that attackers must come with lost of ordnance to spare, meaning a large team.

GVs are here to stay so what can be done?
1. Move away the remote spawns from the town base. Really, in some cases tanks start shelling the town/ base within a minute after spawning when a plane takes nearly 10 minuted to climb and fly to the target.
2. Town resupply by GV must be done at the map room. M3 must drive all the way into town.
3. Open turret vehicles should be more susceptible to fire from above. I can't imagine anyone surviving a 20mm volley into the open turret of an ostwind.

That is all I can come up with right now.

For the Bold pieces, I disagree with.  Short GV icons? Hardly, pay attention.  Even in the Il2, better known as the coffin death trap, I can still spot enemy vehicles, and I'm on a crappy 14 year old computer.  

Many vehicle spawns aren't even slightly close to the town or any base. Some are, I will give you credit for that, some truly are too close for comfort and should be moved back a little. But others are 8k-10k+ and sometimes uphill! Where even taking a c47 3-4 sectors (nearest airfield) is faster than taking the m3 up all the hills and AROUND the base.

Also, I agree with the underlined portion. I've had it sometimes where my wirble had been disabled with.. 5 303s   and other times still kickin with a few passes of 20mms. No idea why, but it just happens.  I've encountered some vehicles who died in one pass of my il2, others who required many passes.

I have been apart of quite a few successful small group takes. One set of bombers. One to three heavy fighters and a goons or m3. Those missions have statistically proven to work 1/3 the time. Win or lose its fun none the less.

And far more rewarding when you take the base.   I recall taking a base with 3 people, me in bombers someone to deack and a goon standing by.    That is how bases should be taken (IMO), don't need 15+ p51s, p38s, p47s to take a base when a few will do the job.      What's funny to me is, when you bring all those people with all that ord, they bomb the town and the base and yet still can't capture the base!

10+ planes in a group should flash a sector red even NOE.

Too gamey.

While I understand where you are coming from (in the same boat), that isn't the way to handle it.

Maybe a feature of when you want to make a mission, you must decide what base this mission is going to attack. If more than a certain number joins and launches with the mission, (say, more than 10 or so) then a "system message" appears saying something like "a group of enemy were last spotted in "this sector" ) or something to that effect.  But that would only happen if you exceeded a specific number of joiners. So if you launch with 8 instead of 10, this message doesn't appear.

If you make a mission, I think you should have to assign a target. "We are attacking A138!"  Even if only the mission planner knows (to prevent de "Spiez").  If you capture the base, then you get a few perks for a job well done.

And I can't say how good it would be to have a random mission feature, that would have a mission that comes up that would say something like.  "Capture a base with 110-Cs and Ju87s".  Where it would have the players join and auto-launch at a specific time. If the players complete the objective they are awarded perks. Also, it promotes doing something outside the box (like the achievements sometimes do).

Or bomb a town with a D3A (Fun mission)
Or a strategic mission.  Bomb strats in any heavy bomber and return to base.
Could even add an achievement for those star collectors.  "Complete 5/20/50/100 auto missions



Sorry for the hi-jack fugitive. Not intended. But I think it would be a nice thing to have.

Just a few thoughts.

Tinkles

<<S>>
 

[BaldEagl]

I rarely play to capture territory but a couple of weeks ago myself and two other Bish took a frontline airfield by ourselves using two GV's and a fighter and there was a defender there the entire time.  It was sort of fun but really way too easy.

[XxDaSTaRxx]

I have been apart of quite a few successful small group takes. One set of bombers. One to three heavy fighters and a goons or m3. Those missions have statistically proven to work 1/3 the time. Win or lose its fun none the less.

Mass bombers. Mass fighters. Backup goons. No way to loose. 

[XxDaSTaRxx]

Well, now I am going to have to give away my little secret of missions! Yes, when I post missions in the MLW arena, I usually get 6 to 8 bomber pilots, 8 to 10 fighters, both heavy and light. What I try to do is stay under 14K for two reasons, #1 bomb accuracies and #2 it promotes a running fight to and from the target. This game is all about air combat, and some GV action, but mainly air combat, and as soon as I show that big DAR bar, I know the enemy fighters are going to show up and the fight is on. That is what is "fun" about this game, getting intercepted and defending the bombers with their guns and the fighters intercepting the bad guys.
While "furballs" are fun I guess, they usually don't prove much except who can out fly and out fight each other. But big bomber missions, all together a different atmosphere of flying. Getting the bombers into a defensive "box" and dispersing the fighters into a "Dr. Pepper" formation, waiting on the bad guys to try and outsmart not only the fighters, but the gunners in the bombers. Then over the target, things begin to get really interesting as all the bombers have a slightly different heading to fly for their hangar or what have you, then they begin to disperse because of the different headings and then the fighters have a helluva time defending them because they are scattered, even though I tell them what heading to fly leaving the base to make a procedure turn and go back to town.
If I get all my bomber pilots home, then I feel as though I have done my job as mission commander, even if they only get one bomber home.
Next time you are in MLW arena around 6PM, EST, that is when I usually start running missions, join us and I think you will enjoy the ramifications of escorting a ET37 mission!

I must say sir your missions are excellent  


The 49th runs good missions as well, know this from personal experience during my time as a knight

[bustr]

This game has always been a version of online RISK. In the past after 2004, we grew fast enough that there was an excess of the statistical small number of any population who liked to fight and or were less risk adverse. Now that our player base is shrinking, you cannot escape seeing human nature and motivation showcased by a game with no rules to how players find thier fun. Fugi you have made this complaint for the last decade.

You have a basic 3 choices to influencing how customers choose to play this game where no rules exist.

1. - Convince Hitech to finally impose a central command and control structure imposing someone's vision of how the game must be played.

This will only work if players are punished in real time. Cancelation of subscriptions, ejection from the game, and restrictions based on access time to resources or access time to join back into game play. Fugi you want to submit your resume?

2. - Convince Hitech to change backend variables.

You can control player motivation by how hard or easy you make objects to kill or capture. Or how much time it takes for them to make it possible for you to access resources. Reduce the effort required to capture a field, fewer players may be required to show up on average, freeing up more to become targets at the same time elsewhere. Less talented risk adverse players may feel emboldened to risk more on their own. The harder you make things to accomplish by average means, the normal human reaction is banding together or ignoring the activity. Radar minimums under 200ft along with towns harder to capture. Backend motivation by changing small variables to the max.

3. - Convince Hitech to change the reward system and what win means.

The current reward system is perceived to be war win centric by a majority of players who also don't spend any time in this forum unhappy about it. You win wars by capturing fields as you see showcased by hoards which are designed to win. And they win. The majority of people in the world want low risk for as much reward and winning as they can get. Especially since it's their $14.95 and not yours.

So reducing the radar minimums to 65ft and making towns harder to capture got rid of NOE hoards. But, it didn't force hoards to fight each other or stop being hoards. It just created a generation of more determined hoards with a new generation of leaders leveraging the current game mechanisms. Because they no longer feel secure from radar or the potential outcomes at their target. This is a result of a majority of people who play the game from the perception the reward system is war win centric. Right or wrong for the future of this game, that is a lot of $14.95 each month.

So what are you going to give them that will compete, or can replace their current reward system? Besides telling them to trust in you because they will feel better about themselves if they just believe what you do?

[The Fugitive]

This game has always been a version of online RISK. In the past after 2004, we grew fast enough that there was an excess of the statistical small number of any population who liked to fight and or were less risk adverse. Now that our player base is shrinking, you cannot escape seeing human nature and motivation showcased by a game with no rules to how players find thier fun. Fugi you have made this complaint for the last decade.

You have a basic 3 choices to influencing how customers choose to play this game where no rules exist.

1. - Convince Hitech to finally impose a central command and control structure imposing someone's vision of how the game must be played.

This will only work if players are punished in real time. Cancelation of subscriptions, ejection from the game, and restrictions based on access time to resources or access time to join back into game play. Fugi you want to submit your resume?

2. - Convince Hitech to change backend variables.

You can control player motivation by how hard or easy you make objects to kill or capture. Or how much time it takes for them to make it possible for you to access resources. Reduce the effort required to capture a field, fewer players may be required to show up on average, freeing up more to become targets at the same time elsewhere. Less talented risk adverse players may feel emboldened to risk more on their own. The harder you make things to accomplish by average means, the normal human reaction is banding together or ignoring the activity. Radar minimums under 200ft along with towns harder to capture. Backend motivation by changing small variables to the max.

3. - Convince Hitech to change the reward system and what win means.

The current reward system is perceived to be war win centric by a majority of players who also don't spend any time in this forum unhappy about it. You win wars by capturing fields as you see showcased by hoards which are designed to win. And they win. The majority of people in the world want low risk for as much reward and winning as they can get. Especially since it's their $14.95 and not yours.

So reducing the radar minimums to 65ft and making towns harder to capture got rid of NOE hoards. But, it didn't force hoards to fight each other or stop being hoards. It just created a generation of more determined hoards with a new generation of leaders leveraging the current game mechanisms. Because they no longer feel secure from radar or the potential outcomes at their target. This is a result of a majority of people who play the game from the perception the reward system is war win centric. Right or wrong for the future of this game, that is a lot of $14.95 each month.

So what are you going to give them that will compete, or can replace their current reward system? Besides telling them to trust in you because they will feel better about themselves if they just believe what you do?

No there are only two ways to do this.

1. HTC institutes  rules/rewards/punishments to guide game play toward a more strategic and tactical type of game play where fighting is more important.

2. The players change how they use the resources they have available to them, including player numbers.


I can try to influence #2 by asking these questions and making other suggestions. #1, well that is all up to HTC and company and so is out of my hands. Should they like an idea that pops up, like having game posted missions that when accomplished by using ONLY the number of players allotted for that mission REWARD those players with perks, or harden town buildings by tying the number of players in the dar circle (more players harder, less easier) and other ideas that pop up in these threads I'm good with that too.

The main line of this thread is hopefully to get players who DO read these theads to think about what they are doing. Are they playing toward a better game play trend or are they adding to the "same old same old horde" type of game play? New players like Whiskey2 find protection in a large group and so I'm sure have that as one of the main reasons they like those missions. Also with their limited skill it is much easier to "get things done" with that large group. I'm not looking to do away with those large missions,  I would however like to see it be harder for a large group like that to take a base with out hurting those that use smaller groups.

While it may be fun and exciting for newer players to do these big missions soon they too will become bored with them. Flying 2 sectors only to be in the last half of the group to arrive over the target to find everything flattened already and no defenders. 20 minutes of flying around doing nothing.... you can do that off line too. Now if its harder for a big group to take a base your not stopping them from doing it and in a way your "punishing", but it is STILL an option for them. If they still want to run a big mission the extra work for the win can give defenders more time to try and stop them adding both more challenge and more fun for both sides.

The picture Whiskey2 posted shows exactly the issue. 13 ID's are shown making 39 B17's. If they are carrying 1k bombs they have 234,000 lbs of bombs 11,000 for the town (this is with out splash damage figured in), 3k each for FH at a large field another 24,000, 3k for each bomber hanger another 12,000, 3k for the VH, 20 other targets, barrack, fuel and such 20,000. If my math is right, thats 70,000 lbs to flatten a large field and it's town. Giving room for "missing" there are still enough tonnage in that one picture to flatten 2 large fields and their towns. How much you want to bet that mission had a single base as the target.

Personally I can't see why half of those in the mission would think its fun as they won't have anything to drop on. From the other side, the only way to defend against something like that is to have the large numbers of planes flying cap or being in a position to intercept.  While its on the easy side to get people together for a mission, it's a bit harder to get a defense force together. The rewards aren't the same and so there is very little to entice people to throw themselves at a gauntlet of buffs like that even if they didn't have cover.

Should they stop these kinds of missions? No because they are some what popular with the new guys. On the other hand there should be a way to counter them. I'm happy to fight against 39 buffs as long as I have a bit of help and a reasonable chance that my team could win. Players that lead these missions can make a difference and change how they guide game play with their missions. The question is do they want to be part of the solution and bring more fun to more players, or do they want to be part of the problem and add to the same old same old?